Civil Justice Between Efficiency And Quality

For a long time, civil justice was considered to be a purely national, conservative, and slow-changing topic. The texts collected in this book supply proof that this is no longer the case. These papers discuss civil justice from a European angle, concentrating on the age-old dichotomy between quality and efficiency. One of the developments that has triggered civil justice to become an international discipline is the establishment of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice - better known by the acronym of its French name, the CEPEJ - on September 18, 2002 by the Council of Europe. The mandate of the CEPEJ is to analyze the results of the various judicial systems of the Member States of the Council of Europe, to identify the difficulties these systems encounter, to develop concrete ways to improve them, and to evaluate the functioning of these systems. Various papers in this volume address the CEPEJ and its work, as well as other issues of civil procedure in Europe, such as legal aid, alternative dispute resolution, and the influence of European developments on the reform of national civil justice systems. Consequently, the book provides an overview of the most recent ideas and developments in the field of civil justice. These ideas and developments show that although the values of the old tradition of European ius commune are still alive, they have been modified and expanded to such an extent that the organization of efficient civil justice systems has become a feasible option for national legislatures.

A recent study in the field of comparative economics (or, more precisely, numerical comparative law) constructed an index of procedural formalism of dispute resolution for more than 100 countries and analyzed the relationship between procedural formalism and certain aspects of quality of the judicial systems. The study's results suggest a strong relationship between legal origins, formalism, and the quality of dispute resolution. Not surprisingly, the study closes with a recommendation for reform. What makes this study so important is not only its findings, backed by an amount of data which seems to be a guarantee for the study's universal validity, but also the financial support of the World Bank - an indicator of the Bank's interest in these questions. Similar studies in the area of banking, securities, and corporate law have received much attention from the legal community. However, for the recent study on civil procedure, this is not the case. Christoph Kern provides a first critical approach to the study from the perspective of a legal scholar. He does not suggest a mere re-coding, but focuses on the methodology and the underlying legal questions. After an extensive discussion of the input to the study, the author turns to the way the study combines the data and, in particular, how it interprets the results. He concludes that the study leaves a mixed impression and that, therefore, doubts remain as to its results and interpretation.

This volume addresses the role of the judge and the parties in civil litigation in mainland China, Hong Kong and various European jurisdictions. It provides an overview and an analysis of how these respective roles have been changed in order to cope with growing caseloads and quality demands. It also shows the different approaches chosen in the jurisdictions covered. Mainland China is introducing far-reaching reforms in its system of civil litigation. From an inquisitorial procedure, in which the parties play a relatively minor role, the country is changing to a more adversarial system with increased powers for the parties. At the same time, case management and the role of the judge as it is understood in mainland China remains different from case management and the role of the judge in Western countries, mainly as regards the limited powers of individual Chinese judges in this respect. Changes in China are justified by the ever-increasing case load of the Chinese courts and the consequent inability to deal with cases in an adequate manner, even though generally speaking Chinese courts still adjudicate civil cases within a relatively short time frame (this may, however, be problematic when viewed from the perspective of the quality of adjudication). Growing caseloads and quality concerns may also be observed in various European states and Hong Kong. In these jurisdictions the civil procedural systems have a relatively adversarial character and it is some of the adversarial features of the existing systems of procedure which are felt to be problematic. Therefore, the lawmakers have opted for increasing the powers of the judge, often making the judge and the parties mutually responsible for the proper conduct of civil cases. Starting from opposite directions, mainland China and the various European states and Hong Kong could meet half way in their reform attempts. This is, however, only possible if a proper understanding is fostered of the developments in these different parts of the World. Even though in both China and Europe the academic community and lawmakers are showing a keen interest in the relevant developments abroad, a study addressing the role of the judge and the parties in civil litigation in both China and Europe is still missing. This book aims to fill this gap in the existing literature.

As judiciaries advance, exploring how court mediation programs can provide opportunities for party-directed reconciliation whilst ensuring access to formal legal channels requires careful investigation. Court Mediation Reform explores comparative empirical findings in order to examine the association between court mediation structure and perceptions of justice, efficiency and confidence in courts.

This book is a collection of papers that address a fundamental question: What is the role of civil justice and civil procedure in the various national traditions in the contemporary world? The book presents striking differences among a range of countries and legal traditions, but also points to common trends and open issues. It brings together prominent experts, professionals and scholars from both civil and common law jurisdictions. It represents all main legal traditions ranging from Europe (Germanic and Romanic countries, Scandinavia, ex-Socialist countries) and Russia to the Americas (North and South) and China (Mainland and Hong Kong). While addressing the main issue – the goals of civil justice – the book discusses the most topical concerns regarding the functioning and efficiency of national systems of civil justice. These include concerns such as finding the appropriate balance between accurate fact-finding and the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, the processing of hard cases and the function of civil justice as a specific public service. In the mosaic of contrasts and oppositions special place is devoted to the continuing battle between the individualistic/liberal approach and the collectivist/paternalistic approach – the battle in which, seemingly, paternalistic tendencies regain momentum in a number of contemporary justice systems.

National civil justice systems are deeply rooted in national legal cultures and traditions. However, in the past few decades they have been increasingly influenced by integration processes at the regional, supra-national and international level. As a by-product of the emergence of economic and political unions and globalisation processes there is pressure to harmonise or even unify the way in which national civil justice systems operate. In an attempt to create a ‘genuine area of justice’, new unified procedures are being developed, which operate in parallel with national civil procedures, and sometimes even strive to replace them. As a reaction to the forces that endeavour to harmonise and unify procedural laws and practices, an opposing trend is gaining momentum: one that insists on diversity and pluralism of national civil procedures. This book focuses on the evolution of procedural reforms in various jurisdictions and the ongoing transformation of national civil justice systems.

This book contains the first major comparative study of litigation costs and methods of funding litigation in more than 30 jurisdictions. It was linked with the most comprehensive review of costs ever carried out in England and Wales by Lord Justice Jackson in 2009 and benefited from the assistance of leading practitioners around the globe. The study analyses the principles and rules that relate to paying courts, witnesses and lawyers, and the rules on cost shifting, if any. It also notes the major ways in which litigation can be funded, identifying the global trend on contraction of legal aid, the so far limited spread of contingency fees, and the growing new phenomenon of private third party litigation funding. The study also presents the results of nine case studies of typical claim types, so as to give a first overview comparison of which countries' legal systems are cheaper or more expensive. The book further contains national chapters with in depth analysis contributed by scholars in 18 jurisdictions (Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Denmark, England & Wales, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan and USA) and a further chapter on Latin American jurisdictions. 'Dr Hodges, Professor Vogenauer and Dr Tulibacka have conducted an excellent and thorough comparative study of litigation costs and funding across a wide range of jurisdictions ('the Oxford study'). The Oxford study is important, because it provides both context and background for any critical examination of our own costs and funding rules... I commend this book both for its breadth and detail and also for its percipient commentary. This work will make a valuable contribution to the debate which lies ahead about how the costs and funding rules of England and Wales should be reformed in order to promote access to justice.' From the Foreword by Lord Justice Jackson, Royal Courts of Justice, 16th July 2010

This book consists of general reports of the International Conference on Judicial Management from Comparative Perspective. This conference held on November 8–10, 2017, at Tianjin University, was organized by China Law Society (CLS) and International Association of Procedural Law Congress (IAPL). The general reporters are prominent scholars who have been selected worldwide by the IAPL Presidium to organize national reporters who shall do researches of his/her own state under the guide of the general reporter’s questionnaire on the specific subject. By this way, the comparative studies are trying to depend on national researches but overcome the general style of “talk past each other.” Moreover, the general reports summarize and give comment on the various system, phenomena or situation from comparative perspective, from which the audience will read their own orientation, doctrines and theories.